At the request of the mapmaker, this map has been placed on vacation for a period of 6 months. After the 6 months the map will be considered Abandoned. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Cartographer Assistants will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

Seamus76 wrote:Just a masterpiece of artistry and gameplay, amazing work as always cairns.

Only thing I can find are the lines from L11, L12, and L13 are much smaller than any other assault lines, especially L13 which is pretty weak. That one in particular might look better to give it a little more arc up to the "L13", and then back down to the landing point. Rather than coming down and then arcing right into the front of the landing.

Seamus, i've fixed those things in the new version 32 which i'll post shortly, after some other adjustments.

iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions? ian.

m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.

it's a standard tactic in trips and quads to wipe out an opponent from an area before he can play a turn, which is why i raised the question. does ms2 going to ms4 and ms5 instead of to m1 and m2 work any better?

iancanton wrote:can the m1 and m2 mines attack the three minesweeper positions? ian.

m1 and m2 are killer neutrals, but if you hold them, yes you can attack along the routes indicated.I have deliberately made a selective path from the the orange blue and silver start positions here, so that there is some strategy between these guys, but if they decide to wipe each other out, they'd be crazy to let it happen on the 1st turn.

it's a standard tactic in trips and quads to wipe out an opponent from an area before he can play a turn, which is why i raised the question. does ms2 going to ms4 and ms5 instead of to m1 and m2 work any better?

ian.

ian, sorry i didn't answer this without much thought previously.i don't think MS2 going to MS4 and MS5 would work any better, and if done that way, would create advantage for MS2 by not having to conquer killer M1 or M2.What perhaps will work better is if those routes have one-way arrows on them, all the way through to land, so that no-one can turn back and conquer a player behind them.They will still have to run the gaunlet of someone capturing a fort on either side of the Dardenalles/Narrows though.

there are a few regions, such as monash gully and quinn's post, which can be bombarded but have no special property other than the +1 auto-deploy and are not really on the way to anywhere. these are destined to remain neutral in most games, unless u reduce the neutrals to n2.

i think we're at the stage where we can freeze the layout (freeing u to work on graphics) and the only gameplay changes to consider, if any, will be neutrals and bonuses.

iancanton wrote:the new one-way minesweeper layout works well. there are a few regions, such as monash gully and quinn's post, which can be bombarded but have no special property other than the +1 auto-deploy and are not really on the way to anywhere. these are destined to remain neutral in most games, unless u reduce the neutrals to n2.

OK, thanks ian. do you have in mind which terts you want reduced apart from monahs gully and quinn's post?

i think we're at the stage where we can freeze the layout (freeing u to work on graphics) and the only gameplay changes to consider, if any, will be neutrals and bonuses. ian.

can we get the gameplay finalised as much as possible before i tend to more graphics?

cairnswk wrote:ian, i think the fort neutrals are out of kilter now, should they be re-examined, some are 3 some are 6, but i think possibly they should be similar.

this doesn't really pose difficulties. the only reason some forts start as n6 is because they are adjacent to 2 starting regions. the minesweepers have no bonus and they can do very little with their 6 troops initially, so they're not a prime target for the forts. conversely, all of the landing ships have a +2 auto-deploy bonus, but are sitting ducks, so the main action is likely to take place there instead.

cairnswk wrote:ian, i think the fort neutrals are out of kilter now, should they be re-examined, some are 3 some are 6, but i think possibly they should be similar.

this doesn't really pose difficulties. the only reason some forts start as n6 is because they are adjacent to 2 starting regions. the minesweepers have no bonus and they can do very little with their 6 troops initially, so they're not a prime target for the forts. conversely, all of the landing ships have a +2 auto-deploy bonus, but are sitting ducks, so the main action is likely to take place there instead.

Version 35.I've adjusted some of the borders to lighten them on the dark side of the map, and increased the borders all round to 2 pixels....they may need toning down some more on the light side now.ian's suggestions as above are done.and moved the border on the Kilid Plateau mountains as requested by MB.

Sorry if the Villages were explained earlier, but I want to make sure I understand them. So if I hold Krithia, that borders Madios? And all of the Villages just attack each other? Which I think is what it means.